NEWT'S FLAWED PLAN TO NEUTER THE CALIPHATE NUTJOBS

by Colin Liddell

"A man with a plan" – that's how Newt Gingrich came across in a recent video that many of you must have seen by now. The guy, recently cited as a possible Trump VP pick, looked impressive – as if glowing with the reflected energy of his master – but once the piping-hot talking point cooled to room temperature the problems became apparent. But don't blame Newt. In the wake of events like the Great Truck-F**k of Nice. we all tend to shoot a bit from the hip or like a ghetto kid robbing a liquor store. At times like this, it's quite difficult not to grab the shitty end of all the sticks being waved around.

So, let's see. Were did Newt go wrong? First off, he made the assumption that any Islamic terrorist candidate wears a turban, smock. and slippers, while banging himself over the head with a Koran sixteen times a day and frothing sharia-law ectoplasm from his mouth. He also assumed he leaves a neat electronic trail of evil that will make him easy to corral. This is what's known as a "pantomime villain."

In his interview with Fox Newt made the following suggestions for tackling Islamic naughtiness:

1. Sharia tests (followed by instant deportation)
2. Making it a felony to go on radical Islamic websites
3. Closing down any organisation that hosts such a website
4. An international campaign of assassination against radical Islamic website operators, using Predator drones

Nice plan, and I would even be inclined to support it, except that I could see this being misused in a number of ways, i.e. used to target enemies of Israel much more than enemies of America and the West, especially as Newt lumps the Iranians in with ISIS.

But there are also other flaws. Perhaps Newt is unfamiliar with the concept of Taqiyyah, the Islamic version of bullshitting your foes. Any Islamist worth his 72 virgins (and optional goat) is not about to nod and smile through his blood-caked beard when asked the all-important S-question: "Are you or have you ever been a believer in Sharia Law"?

The terrorist: would have
slipped through Newt's net.

Conversely a lot of moderate normie Muslims will probably say "yes," as sets of law derived from the Islamic religious tradition are pretty common amongst the kebab, and not the scary, radical, toxic thing that most cuckservatives and Fox News watchers seem to think.

More tellingly, Newt's Sharia law test would have completely failed in the case of Mohamed Bouhlel, the demon driver in Nice. Detailed reports suggest that here again was a superficially assimilated Muslim, who skimped on the accepted signifiers of being a radical terrorist threat – although we have yet to hear about his online habits. The general picture, however, seems to suggest that he 'offset' any clicks on ISIS beheading vids by mainlining on decadent Western porn:

One told BFM TV he was "more into women than religion".

"He (didn't) pray and like(d) girls and Salsa," according to BFM's crime correspondent.

One 40-year-old neighbour, who would only give her first name Jasmine, said: "He was rude and bit weird.

"We would hold the door open for him and he would just blank [us]. He kept himself to himself but would always rant about his wife. He had marital problems and would tell people in the local cafe. He scared my children though."

She added: "He was very smart with the same haircut as George Clooney."

The fact is that many terrorists are culturally conflicted individuals in a way that makes them (a) harder to identify as radical Islamists and (b) propels them towards ultimate violence – an awkward mix for Newt and co.

Of course, the fact that Bouhlel wasn't a textbook pantomime Islamist villain is now being seized on by the useful idiots of the Liberal Left to make the point that he was just a disturbed loner, and therefore no significant conclusions should be drawn from his case, and certainly nothing aimed at limiting the number of Muslims, you racists!

Their argument seems to be that he didn't do this because he was a Muslim therefore we need more Muslims, or something like that. Newt's approach – as well as that of Trump – does nothing to tackle the problem posed by the likes of Bouhlel, except possibly to raise the bureaucracy bar a little. 

The real problem with Islam is that it is not a race but it should be. It is an ideology, but ideology on its own is bunk. What makes Islam dangerous is its racial – or more accurately its anti-racial (i.e. non-White or non-European) component and the fact that it coincides with a great many of the lower-IQ (whether due to nurture or nature) black and brown people we have sucked into our vacuous European societies.

These inevitably feel – in varying but considerable degrees – alienated, confused, inferior, unhappy, and, most importantly, detached from their fellow citizens. It is people like this, then, who suck on their own form of the Black Pill, and who, when they crack up, go atavistically Islamic and treat a promenade of human beings like a splatterfest computer game. 

It is not that these people are Muslim that is the essential problem. That is just the signifier. The real problem is basic human psychology and the fact that they don't belong in the West and can't handle not belonging in the West.

The difference between them and us is that we also don't really belong in the West, but at least we can handle it a lot better than they can – after all we have got Pokemon Go as a substitute reality, not the epileptic bullshit of a sixth-century camel jockey married to a six-year old child. Yes, the West is not something that we ourselves belong to. We don't. After all, how can you belong to a vacuum? No, we don't belong to it, but it is our not-belonging, not theirs.